of the Northern District of California, said the government had failed to follow proper procedures

What are the proper procedures for dealing with people that have broken the law. Ignore the offense until the Dems an change the law to buy votes?

for issuing a new rule that would have forced employers to fire workers if their Social Security numbers could not be verified within three months.

Judge Breyer chastised the Department of Homeland Security for making a policy change with “massive ramifications” for employers, without giving any legal explanation or conducting a required survey of the costs and impact for small businesses.

How about throwing a few employeers, plus this judge, in jail.

Under the rule issued by the department, which had been scheduled to take effect last month, employers would have to fire workers within 90 days after receiving a notice from the Social Security Administration that an employee’s identity information did not match the agency’s records. Illegal immigrants often present false Social Security information when applying for jobs.

The rule, announced with fanfare in August by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, was the linchpin of the administration’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration by denying jobs to the immigrants. It is part of a campaign of stepped-up enforcement since broader immigration legislation favored by President Bush was rejected by Congress in June.

If allowed to take effect, the judge found, the rule could lead to the firing of many thousands of legally authorized workers, resulting in “irreparable harm to innocent workers and employers.”

Why would thousands of legally authorized workers present false Social Security information when applying for jobs? And if there is a typo made, why aren't three months long enough to resolve the problem?

HCDL blogged Oh, a little food for thought. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco, the one behind blocking this crackdown from happening, was appointed by Bill Clinton. Just imagine what kinds of judges Hillary will appoint if she's elected...

Macranger blogged It’s time for the federal government to literally clear the benches out in California. A good thing is that this is most overturned court in America, and with assclowns like Breyer it’s not hard to see why.

CQ blogged So let's get this straight. Employers have a requirement to get Social Security information so that they can verify employment eligibility. When they attempt to verify the employee and the Social Security administration determines that the number is invalid, what is the government going to do? Ignore it, even though it's really identity fraud?

If the government insists on setting up SSNs as employment requirements, then the government has to protect the integrity of their use. If someone steals my SSN in order to defraud an employer, they will eventually use it to establish credit and damage my economic standing. At the least, it renders the entire system suspect. The government has a legal obligation to protect people that they force into this database.

Interestingly, Breyer based his ruling at least in part on the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which forbids agency enforcement of law without careful consideration of the cost to small businesses. That act makes good sense when discussing issues that don't intrude on national sovereignty, national security, and fraud. The requirement for employers to provide reverification within 90 days of finding out that an employee either made a mistake or lied about their SSN does not seem overly burdensome, and the nation and its people have what should be an overwhelming interest in border enforcement and protection against identity theft. Most people would understand this, but apparently not Breyer nor the Chamber of Commerce, which joined in the challenge to the process.

I'd expect the appellate court to overrule this, but we're talking about the 9th Circuit. We'll have to wait for this to go to the Supreme Court for any reversal.

Prairie Weather blogged The US District judge in San Francisco sees the administration's use of Social Security numbers in the crackdown as far too scattershot. He warned of "the plan's potentially 'staggering' impact on law-abiding workers and companies."